Network World: Gambling with our rights

"ALBANY, N.Y. - Citibank, the nation's largest credit card issuer has agreed to block all online gambling transactions that use its credit cards, the state attorney general said Friday. The agreement announced by the bank and Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is expected to significantly reduce illegal, underage and potentially addictive Internet gambling, Spitzer said. It applies to all Internet gambling transactions, not just those in New York. Americans now waste $4 billion a year on this pernicious form of gambling,'Spitzer said."

- (AP) 06/14/2002

Hmm. Can you guess the glaring inconsistency here? Yep, they want to stop online gambling but they think the NewYork State Lottery - another pernicious form of gambling - is OK.And the Lottery had revenue last year of $4.67 billion!

When I spoke to the Lottery's press office they said the Lottery is different because profits fund education ($1.56 billion last year - that's about 5% of New York's education budget.

As I explored the facts and figures concerning the Lottery I discovered an interesting item in its Frequently Asked Questions section:"Can I buy New York Lottery tickets over the Internet?"

The answer: "No." I placed a half dozen calls to various arms of the NewYork state government but no luck, no one could explain why it is not allowed.

The news item above went on to quote a Citibank spokeswoman as saying:"Citibank agreed to take these steps to help alleviate concerns raised by the attorney general about the impact that gambling on credit may have on New York residents:' Citibank also agreed to pay $400,000 to nonprofit groups that counsel and help families hurt by gambling addictions, the company said.

Hmm, "concerns raised by the attorney general"So Spitzer feels something needs to be done to protect those misguided knuckleheads who don't understand the crushingly obvious fact that casinos on- or off-line aren't in the gambling business for the sheer pleasure of it. But the state lottery is different.

Don't you get the sense that behind the mealy mouthed altruism there lies a quagmire of grubby politics? Why would Citibank cough up $400,000 when it has done nothing wrong?

And the thing that amuses me is the use of the Internet as a pawn in the game. Let's be clear about this: the problem of gambling addiction is not caused by the Internet any more than it is by Atlantic City or Las Vegas. But do we hear any rallying cries to curb those cities? Nope.

The fact that Citibank has apparently caved in under what I assume to be significant political pressure is yet another blow to the foundations of your personal freedoms.

What next? Will we see the banks blocking online credit card transactions with known adult sites? How far from that to the enforced blocking of politically suspicious sites and the mandatory monitoring and oversight of all online financial transactions? And why not block credit card transactions with McDonalds - after all, gambling on credit might bankrupt you, but fast food will kill you.

There are lots of parties representing vested interests that want to keep the Internet from evolving in certain ways.The two major axes of those interests are political power and money, and one of the points where the axes intersect is gambling.

If the motives that drove Citibank's decision were as pure as those proffered by Spitzer we would applaud a bold, effective social policy that should help many people who can't help themselves. But the stink of political maneuvering is hard to blow away.

"Other companies, including Bank of America, MBNA and Chase Manhattan Bank, also have begun blocking the gambling transactions," Spitzer says.

That sound you hear is the howl of anguish as your rights rush towards the horizon with their butts on fire.

Write on to backspin@gibbs.com.